Calgary Roads

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

The centre of the pinavia is begging for a GIGANTIC piece of public art.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Well, now I'm FULLY on board with this interchange design.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Also, in looking for that Crowchild Trail picture from the 1970s, I found that 14th street NW at SAIT use to have a cloverleaf interchange with 14th ave. The Trans Canada Highway, only a block away, was still at grade. I never knew this existed before:

Interesting. I would have thought that interchange would have been built around/during when the LRT was built, not a decade or more beforehand.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Good one dizzy edge.

Only sad part is that most people under 30 won't get the reference.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I wonder if the LRT was the reason the cloverleaf was removed.

The over pass at 16th appears to be the reason the cloverleaf was removed. Additionally, therer appears to be a lad swap between the city and both North Hill mall and SAIT. The city purchased land for 16th Ave overpass and gave up land for the 14th avenue overpass.

That pinavia thing wouldn't really have a practical application because any junction that has volume high enough to justify semi-directional ramps for all left turns would likely have through volume such that the the curves for traffic not turning would be too much of a bottleneck. It would miserably and horrendously fail any real cost-benefit analysis vs a cloverstack, Alberta's new go-to free flow design. Look at all those piers.

[Oliver Klozov]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Also, in looking for that Crowchild Trail picture from the 1970s, I found that 14th street NW at SAIT use to have a cloverleaf interchange with 14th ave. The Trans Canada Highway, only a block away, was still at grade. I never knew this existed before:

That was the first and for awhile the only cloverleaf interchange in Alberta. Barlow and 16th was next.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Oliver Klozov

That was the first and for awhile the only cloverleaf interchange in Alberta. Barlow and 16th was next.

Do you know what year it was built?

[tmjr]

Originally Posted by Acey

That pinavia thing wouldn't really have a practical application because any junction that has volume high enough to justify semi-directional ramps for all left turns would likely have through volume such that the the curves for traffic not turning would be too much of a bottleneck. It would miserably and horrendously fail any real cost-benefit analysis vs a cloverstack, Alberta's new go-to free flow design. Look at all those piers.

Perhaps, but could a sarlacc find an adequate home in a cloverstack? I think not...

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

The Barlow/16th was built in the summer of 1956, and was the first in Alberta to my knowledge. Do you know when the 14th/14th one was built?

No earlier than 1955, but close to it, it looks like: (http://contentdm.ucalgary.ca/cdm4/it...&CISOPTR=51811) (source: University of Calgary Library: http://library.ucalgary.ca/node/2142)

South is on the left side of the picture. Zoom level is pretty far out, but looks like there might be some earth moving going on in the 14th/14th and North Hill Mall areas.

Macleod/162 Render



• Video Link

[Fuzz]

As a pedestrian, you get to cross 4 roads, no matter which way you want to go!

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Acey

That pinavia thing wouldn't really have a practical application because any junction that has volume high enough to justify semi-directional ramps for all left turns would likely have through volume such that the the curves for traffic not turning would be too much of a bottleneck. It would miserably and horrendously fail any real cost-benefit analysis vs a cloverstack, Alberta's new go-to free flow design. Look at all those piers.

That was exactly my thoughts - it looks cool, but a cloverstack accomplishes the same thing for less money.

The Pinavia has all that open space in the middle, but no good way to access it.

I doubt one will ever exist outside of a computer simulation.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As a pedestrian, you get to cross 4 roads, no matter which way you want to go!

Just walk to the pedestrian bridge.....

Pedestrian friendly my backside.

[simster3]

That is no different than most other interchanges. It would be nice if they could somehow build it to go under the roads though.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As a pedestrian, you get to cross 4 roads, no matter which way you want to go!

It's still going to be better than waiting 5 minutes for Macloed to then cross 8 lanes of traffic, as the situation is now. I don't think it's fair to criticise the design for that, I'm fairly sure the pedestrian traffic on that stretch isn't going to be very high. I'd rather we built paths/bridges/crossings between destinations rather than just following roads.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's still going to be better than waiting 5 minutes for Macloed to then cross 8 lanes of traffic, as the situation is now. I don't think it's fair to criticise the design for that, I'm fairly sure the pedestrian traffic on that stretch isn't going to be very high. I'd rather we built paths/bridges/crossings between destinations rather than just following roads.

This is a bit of a misleading statement, we don't often determine the need for a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

This is a bit of a misleading statement, we don't often determine the need for a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river.

No, but that wasn't how I judged that. The intersection has huge parking lots and malls on all four corners - I doubt too many people are walking between them. And if they are, it would be better to have separate pathways and bridges going where people actually want to walk, rather than forcing pedestrians to make long detours just to follow roadways, as is the norm in suburbia.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's still going to be better than waiting 5 minutes for Macloed to then cross 8 lanes of traffic, as the situation is now. I don't think it's fair to criticise the design for that, I'm fairly sure the pedestrian traffic on that stretch isn't going to be very high. I'd rather we built paths/bridges/crossings between destinations rather than just following roads.

Didn't mean to criticize, it was just an observation. Most at grade crossings are at most 3 streets, trying to think of bridge ones but I think they would be 3 as well?

[Bri-Guy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

As a pedestrian, you get to cross 4 roads, no matter which way you want to go!

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Just walk to the pedestrian bridge.....

Pedestrian friendly my backside.

As you are counting "4 roads" based on 2 separate turn lanes and 2 separate main directional travel roads. Seem that this would be the same measurement as any other major roads that have turn lanes with small "islands" once you cross the turn lanes and stand at the corner on the island. Roads not as major as this have this as well.

As far as pedestrian friendly, I think that it is a benefit that there are not more crossings that are required to be made whether you are staying on the same side (north or south) or if you are crossing the intersection (ie. NW to SE). This allows for much more direct travel as compared to some other iterations what would have forced pedestrians to cross Macleod on only one side of 162nd Ave ( most likely the north side due to loops from and to Macleod Trail north. Definitely a negative vs this plan. Pedestrian bridges would be good to separate travelers from cars, but would also likely involve bridges that would be either much less direct and would also require climbing additional height (undesirable).

Overall, given what it is (a high volume interchange) it considers and accommodates pedestrian traffic in a better fashion than other plans. My opinion.